You are trying to make copyright law something it isn't. We already know your understanding of it is very weak, as reinforced twice now just this week (the other time being your misunderstanding of PM).
See, I actually have to deal with copyright issues on an hourly basis during my day. Literally. And even I know that cases like this are not cut and dry.
I also have an uncle who is the senior copyright lawyer at a major publisher. Because our professions have so many intersections, we talk shop all the time. Even as a copyright lawyer for decades, he still spends most of the time 'staring out the window,' which is his way of saying that even he has to think hard about this stuff.
You see, SDW, the reason you are so consistently wrong is that you think you can't just infer everything from just a little bit of information. The fact is that copyright law is really complex when you get into individual situations. In fact, the law part of it is just a guidline, and every organization that works off that has a complex set of issues and solutions that move it far from the basic common understandings of copyright. You can't just infer this kind of stuff. The issues I deal with, for instance, require a TON of background knowledge. If you tried to deal with these issues you just end up tripping all over the place.
Is your gripe (not fox's, since they have yet to say anything) is legitimate? I don't know, and neither do you, no matter how much you think you think being a 5th grade music teacher in rural penn has taught you about the copyright issues large organizations and companies struggle with.
But my *guess* is that it won't go very far. If we are talking about two radio shows, then maybe, but I'm not sure how parody is handled.
The previous case that you were dead wrong about was totally stupid and impossible to win from the get-go, and this was painfully clear to anyone with even a basic knowledge of it. Franken is pushing the limits more this time. Clearly the lawyers they have working for them (who are likely fairly accomplished) seem to think they can get away with it. Who knows, though? Not you.
And you never will know anything until you start accepting that your judgement is often not accurate.
giant:
Once again, I'll look past your unbelievable condescension and arrogance, and just respond to your points.
My judgements can be wrong as anyone else's can. I think that Fox had a case last time, but chose to drop it. You can't say I was "dead wrong" just because Fox dropped the suit. I understand that copyright law is enourmously complicated, but in a case like this my understanding is that the plantiff would have to prove that 1) Confusion to the consumer would result and 2) Franken could capitalize on the results of the infringement. I understand that's simplified.
I have some experience with copyright issues, but I am not claiming to be an expert. It just seems to me that Fox (actually Bill O'Reilly) would have stronger case this time. You can disagree, but I don't see why my opinion is worthy of mocking. It's not unreasonable to think O'Reilly will sue...and perhaps even win.
They had to drop their case! They lost miserably in the first round.
Remember the judge? "some cases are hard... some cases are easy... this is an easy one."
They could have tried to appeal but the court would not have accepted the suit.
I can almost guarantee you will not hear a peep from O'Reilly's or Fox's lawyers on this one... I'm sure Franken on the Radio will drive O'Reilly nutso though.
My judgements can be wrong as anyone else's can. I think that Fox had a case last time, but chose to drop it. You can't say I was "dead wrong" just because Fox dropped the suit.
Look at chu_bakka's post above this. You are consistently dead wrong, and you statement here is yet another example.
Quote:
I understand that copyright law is enourmously complicated, but in a case like this my understanding is that the plantiff would have to prove that 1) Confusion to the consumer would result and 2) Franken could capitalize on the results of the infringement.
Maybe you have a point. People that watch (and, particularly, defend) fox are indeed very confused.
Once again, I'll look past your unbelievable condescension and arrogance, and just respond to your points.
My judgements can be wrong as anyone else's can. I think that Fox had a case last time, but chose to drop it. You can't say I was "dead wrong" just because Fox dropped the suit. I understand that copyright law is enourmously complicated, but in a case like this my understanding is that the plantiff would have to prove that 1) Confusion to the consumer would result and 2) Franken could capitalize on the results of the infringement. I understand that's simplified.
I have some experience with copyright issues, but I am not claiming to be an expert. It just seems to me that Fox (actually Bill O'Reilly) would have stronger case this time. You can disagree, but I don't see why my opinion is worthy of mocking. It's not unreasonable to think O'Reilly will sue...and perhaps even win.
Actually it is. And whatever experience you have... you need more. To even argue that someone will confuse the two is laughable. Let alone that he stands to profit from marketing himself in an O'Riely way. The markets are like night and day. Hell... their shows aren;t even up against each other. Franken runs against Limbaugh (the big fat idiot).
it's not unreasonable to think he'll sue and perhaps win. Highly unlikely? Yes. Laughable? Definately. Only done to hamper, annoy and possibly free press? Hell yeah.
Look at chu_bakka's post above this. You are consistently dead wrong, and you statement here is yet another example.
Maybe you have a point. People that watch (and, particularly, defend) fox are indeed very confused.
Nice spin. "SDW is consistently wrong". That's a very convenient way of avoiding any real debate whatsoever.
We are all wrong sometimes, just as I was on the first lawsuit. I was also apparently wrong about WMD in Iraq, as were a lot of other people. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. That's not the issue.
The real issue at hand is your complete lack of tolerance for ANY dissenting opinion. It would be fine if you simply disagreed (even strongly) and made a case to counter mine. However, you don't do that. As I've said before, you have to go one step further and MOCK the mere existence of the opinion and the person who holds it. It was NOT unreasonable to think that Fox's first suit could have succeeded, just as it was NOT unreasonable to think Saddam had WMD.
Actually it is. And whatever experience you have... you need more. To even argue that someone will confuse the two is laughable. Let alone that he stands to profit from marketing himself in an O'Riely way. The markets are like night and day. Hell... their shows aren;t even up against each other. Franken runs against Limbaugh (the big fat idiot).
it's not unreasonable to think he'll sue and perhaps win. Highly unlikely? Yes. Laughable? Definately. Only done to hamper, annoy and possibly free press? Hell yeah.
What experience do you have? I've talked to people in the legal profession about this. Not one had a "that's ridiculous" reaction. To be fair, many did not think the suit would succeed (and I should mention that was after my post that giant quoted). However, no one came out and said it had no chance, nor was it laughable. Each person contemplated at and discussed some of the issues involved.
The reason some of you (read: giant) feel the way you do is that you are completely and totally polarized. Franken could name his show the "Bill O'Reilly on FoxNews Show" and you'd still dismiss any attempt to take legal action.
We are all wrong sometimes, just as I was on the first lawsuit. I was also apparently wrong about WMD in Iraq, as were a lot of other people. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. That's not the issue.
Right. It's not the issue.
The real problem is that even though you are consistently wrong, you still have yet to sit back and figure out where the breakdown is occurring. There is a reason why your assessments are incorrect and rest on inaccurate assumptions.
Quote:
The real issue at hand is your complete lack of tolerance for ANY dissenting opinion.
I have no problem with differing opinions, so long as they deal with the facts of the real world and as long as they are born out of careful consideration of all of the available information.
What I have zero tolerance for are pre-determined beliefs and blatant ignorance of the majority of available information surrounding a given topic.
And don't pretend you have started 90% of your AO posts aren't stuffed with insults.
What does it matter? He's not the one making obviously false statements while claiming to have some sort of special knowledge of copyright.
Quote:
The reason some of you (read: giant) feel the way you do is that you are completely and totally polarized. Franken could name his show the "Bill O'Reilly on FoxNews Show" and you'd still dismiss any attempt to take legal action.
Hmmmm.
Last I checked, my comments were that I didn't know enough about the situation to form a solid opinion.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
O'Lielly put Fox up to it the first time... he's probably not crying to AIles this time.
Yeah, my impression was that they (fox) were all rolling their eyes and only grudgingly went along.
Originally posted by giant
You are trying to make copyright law something it isn't. We already know your understanding of it is very weak, as reinforced twice now just this week (the other time being your misunderstanding of PM).
See, I actually have to deal with copyright issues on an hourly basis during my day. Literally. And even I know that cases like this are not cut and dry.
I also have an uncle who is the senior copyright lawyer at a major publisher. Because our professions have so many intersections, we talk shop all the time. Even as a copyright lawyer for decades, he still spends most of the time 'staring out the window,' which is his way of saying that even he has to think hard about this stuff.
You see, SDW, the reason you are so consistently wrong is that you think you can't just infer everything from just a little bit of information. The fact is that copyright law is really complex when you get into individual situations. In fact, the law part of it is just a guidline, and every organization that works off that has a complex set of issues and solutions that move it far from the basic common understandings of copyright. You can't just infer this kind of stuff. The issues I deal with, for instance, require a TON of background knowledge. If you tried to deal with these issues you just end up tripping all over the place.
Is your gripe (not fox's, since they have yet to say anything) is legitimate? I don't know, and neither do you, no matter how much you think you think being a 5th grade music teacher in rural penn has taught you about the copyright issues large organizations and companies struggle with.
But my *guess* is that it won't go very far. If we are talking about two radio shows, then maybe, but I'm not sure how parody is handled.
The previous case that you were dead wrong about was totally stupid and impossible to win from the get-go, and this was painfully clear to anyone with even a basic knowledge of it. Franken is pushing the limits more this time. Clearly the lawyers they have working for them (who are likely fairly accomplished) seem to think they can get away with it. Who knows, though? Not you.
And you never will know anything until you start accepting that your judgement is often not accurate.
giant:
Once again, I'll look past your unbelievable condescension and arrogance, and just respond to your points.
My judgements can be wrong as anyone else's can. I think that Fox had a case last time, but chose to drop it. You can't say I was "dead wrong" just because Fox dropped the suit. I understand that copyright law is enourmously complicated, but in a case like this my understanding is that the plantiff would have to prove that 1) Confusion to the consumer would result and 2) Franken could capitalize on the results of the infringement. I understand that's simplified.
I have some experience with copyright issues, but I am not claiming to be an expert. It just seems to me that Fox (actually Bill O'Reilly) would have stronger case this time. You can disagree, but I don't see why my opinion is worthy of mocking. It's not unreasonable to think O'Reilly will sue...and perhaps even win.
Remember the judge? "some cases are hard... some cases are easy... this is an easy one."
They could have tried to appeal but the court would not have accepted the suit.
I can almost guarantee you will not hear a peep from O'Reilly's or Fox's lawyers on this one... I'm sure Franken on the Radio will drive O'Reilly nutso though.
Originally posted by SDW2001
My judgements can be wrong as anyone else's can. I think that Fox had a case last time, but chose to drop it. You can't say I was "dead wrong" just because Fox dropped the suit.
Look at chu_bakka's post above this. You are consistently dead wrong, and you statement here is yet another example.
I understand that copyright law is enourmously complicated, but in a case like this my understanding is that the plantiff would have to prove that 1) Confusion to the consumer would result and 2) Franken could capitalize on the results of the infringement.
Maybe you have a point. People that watch (and, particularly, defend) fox are indeed very confused.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
They had to drop their case! They lost miserably in the first round.
Remember the judge? "some cases are hard... some cases are easy... this is an easy one."
Yeah, and you gotta love the quote: "wholly without merit, both factually and legally."
Real comprehensive understanding of copyright you got there, SDW.
Originally posted by SDW2001
giant:
Once again, I'll look past your unbelievable condescension and arrogance, and just respond to your points.
My judgements can be wrong as anyone else's can. I think that Fox had a case last time, but chose to drop it. You can't say I was "dead wrong" just because Fox dropped the suit. I understand that copyright law is enourmously complicated, but in a case like this my understanding is that the plantiff would have to prove that 1) Confusion to the consumer would result and 2) Franken could capitalize on the results of the infringement. I understand that's simplified.
I have some experience with copyright issues, but I am not claiming to be an expert. It just seems to me that Fox (actually Bill O'Reilly) would have stronger case this time. You can disagree, but I don't see why my opinion is worthy of mocking. It's not unreasonable to think O'Reilly will sue...and perhaps even win.
Actually it is. And whatever experience you have... you need more. To even argue that someone will confuse the two is laughable. Let alone that he stands to profit from marketing himself in an O'Riely way. The markets are like night and day. Hell... their shows aren;t even up against each other. Franken runs against Limbaugh (the big fat idiot).
it's not unreasonable to think he'll sue and perhaps win. Highly unlikely? Yes. Laughable? Definately. Only done to hamper, annoy and possibly free press? Hell yeah.
Originally posted by giant
Look at chu_bakka's post above this. You are consistently dead wrong, and you statement here is yet another example.
Maybe you have a point. People that watch (and, particularly, defend) fox are indeed very confused.
Nice spin. "SDW is consistently wrong". That's a very convenient way of avoiding any real debate whatsoever.
We are all wrong sometimes, just as I was on the first lawsuit. I was also apparently wrong about WMD in Iraq, as were a lot of other people. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. That's not the issue.
The real issue at hand is your complete lack of tolerance for ANY dissenting opinion. It would be fine if you simply disagreed (even strongly) and made a case to counter mine. However, you don't do that. As I've said before, you have to go one step further and MOCK the mere existence of the opinion and the person who holds it. It was NOT unreasonable to think that Fox's first suit could have succeeded, just as it was NOT unreasonable to think Saddam had WMD.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
Actually it is. And whatever experience you have... you need more. To even argue that someone will confuse the two is laughable. Let alone that he stands to profit from marketing himself in an O'Riely way. The markets are like night and day. Hell... their shows aren;t even up against each other. Franken runs against Limbaugh (the big fat idiot).
it's not unreasonable to think he'll sue and perhaps win. Highly unlikely? Yes. Laughable? Definately. Only done to hamper, annoy and possibly free press? Hell yeah.
What experience do you have? I've talked to people in the legal profession about this. Not one had a "that's ridiculous" reaction. To be fair, many did not think the suit would succeed (and I should mention that was after my post that giant quoted). However, no one came out and said it had no chance, nor was it laughable. Each person contemplated at and discussed some of the issues involved.
The reason some of you (read: giant) feel the way you do is that you are completely and totally polarized. Franken could name his show the "Bill O'Reilly on FoxNews Show" and you'd still dismiss any attempt to take legal action.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We are all wrong sometimes, just as I was on the first lawsuit. I was also apparently wrong about WMD in Iraq, as were a lot of other people. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. That's not the issue.
Right. It's not the issue.
The real problem is that even though you are consistently wrong, you still have yet to sit back and figure out where the breakdown is occurring. There is a reason why your assessments are incorrect and rest on inaccurate assumptions.
The real issue at hand is your complete lack of tolerance for ANY dissenting opinion.
I have no problem with differing opinions, so long as they deal with the facts of the real world and as long as they are born out of careful consideration of all of the available information.
What I have zero tolerance for are pre-determined beliefs and blatant ignorance of the majority of available information surrounding a given topic.
And don't pretend you have started 90% of your AO posts aren't stuffed with insults.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What experience do you have?
What does it matter? He's not the one making obviously false statements while claiming to have some sort of special knowledge of copyright.
The reason some of you (read: giant) feel the way you do is that you are completely and totally polarized. Franken could name his show the "Bill O'Reilly on FoxNews Show" and you'd still dismiss any attempt to take legal action.
Hmmmm.
Last I checked, my comments were that I didn't know enough about the situation to form a solid opinion.